How about when the number of prominent, respected, and world-renowned scientists dissenting from the liberal global-warm-mongering far exceeds the number of scientists involved in the UN’s whole fraudulent International Panel on Climate Change?

As American Thinker points out, we have reached just such a number…and then some.

32,000 American scientists, including over 9,000 Ph.D’s, have now signed the “Oregon Petition” rejecting Kyoto and other similar measures, and the premise of “global warming” itself. The petition reads:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

With a corrupt Democrat majority in congress and both parties’ presidential candidates poised to do enormous damage to the US economy over nothing more than environmental hysteria and junk science, this story needs to get out.

But you know as well as I do, the mainstream media won’t cover it. (The National Post gives a detailed account of just how actively the media has been burying and trying to discredit real global warming dissent.) At least not until the story reaches such a critical mass that they can no longer ignore it.

I hope you’ll all join me in getting the word out. Blog about it, email it to friends, Digg it, Reddit it… pass it on.

Update: The official site of the Oregon Petition lists the signators of the petition by name and state, breaks them down by degree, and answers all sorts of questions you may have about the petition.

I agree, the fact that he has signed it lends great credibility to the petition. The petition was started by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and President of Rockefeller University. The truth is the petition is signed by some of America’s finest scientific minds.

But I love that you were so eager to dismiss the opinions of 32,000 scientists because they say something you don’t want to hear that you presumed one of the world’s most preeminent physisists to be unqualified.

32,000 scientists sign this petition, and (other than National Post) I can’t find a single mainstream media outlet that is covering the story. You’d think at least they’d cover it with a negative spin, like Serentripity, and try to attack the credibility of this 32k group. But nothing? I think 2008 will be the “tipping point” year when the AGW religion implodes. You can only go so long with zero evidence to support your theory. Now that scientists themselves are bailing, eventually the media will have to notice, and then–eventually–the public will learn. Finally, maybe decades from now, politicians will start to change their minds.

Welcome to American Elephants! I think the MSM will try to discredit the petition, but only if the story gets enough attention to begin with. And they certainly aren’t going to do anything to help that happen!

What data is there on the scientists that signed this? How did they verify the claims of each signer?

I don’t think you can just say, “Look, we had 32,000 ‘scientists’ sign this” in order to try to trump the scientists whose credentials were verified if you are claiming the number “far exceeds” the UN numbers.

Prove to us the validity of their credentials, otherwise this data really just looks politically driven.

Serendipity, You can find the answers to your questions at PetitionProject.org. Where they list the signers by name, by state, and by degree, and answer all sorts of other FAQ.

By the way, could you please prove to us the validity of the credentials of the people who wrote the UN’s IPCC report summary, which I happen to know was written by politicians and bureaucrats, not scientists?

So these are people who just checked a box and voila, they are a scientist.

I think you are getting me wrong.

I have an advanced degree in science. I know that in science, you can’t prove something to be so, you can only demonstrate it’s likelihood to be true.

I’d be a fool to tell you that I know that climate warming is due to factors a, b, and c. While I think most scientists will agree that the observation that the earth is warming appears to be true, the causes are disputed.

But you seem to be as politically motivated to know, or not know. I mean, just look at your blog. It is dripping with political intent. I don’t think you have the open mind that a true scientist would have.

I find it curious that you claim to have an advanced degree in science, yet you had no idea who Freeman Dyson, one of the preeminent physicists of our time, was. I’m not a scientist and even I knew who he was. Nor did you know who Frederick Seitz, former President of the US National Academy of Sciences, is, and I find it even more curious that you continue to question their credibility.

But I digress, and will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I, on the other hand, never claimed to be a scientist. Although I am familiar enough with the scientific method to know that consensus has nothing to do with it and to understand the arguments made by both sides.

I am very much concerned with the politics of the matter. “Global warming” is almost entirely political. The summary of the report written by the IPCC was written almost entirely by politicians and bureaucrats, not scientists, and many of the scientists who were actually involved with the report itself have since asked that their names be removed from it, precisely because of how the UN and other politicians are trying to misrepresent the science to the public.

The computer models upon which all the “environmentalists” scare-mongering is based, were proven, scientifically, to be completely unable to predict present climate conditions using known historical data. Yet Al Gore and his ilk continue to operate as if the data based on those models is reliable. It conclusively is not.

No, I am not a scientist, but I am extraordinarily concerned by the policy changes being proposed which will do great damage to economies, liberty, and people all around the world …all of which are based on science that is controversial at best, and hysterical junk science at worst.

And I now have 32,000 scientists, in America alone, including some of the greatest minds of our time, who agree with me.

While I do have an advanced degree in science, I wasn’t calling into question the credibility of the aforementioned scientists. (Also, I left science about 10 years ago for business).

My point was that, as scientists, we have to remain open to the possibility of numerous explanations. We need to be careful siding with a stance because it suits our political agenda. This goes for both sides.

I think you have interpreted my critique as political. You may be surprised to know that I have voted for republican candidates and I like McCain.

But I think you should admit that you are publishing your views on a blog that has a clear political position, so you are going to open yourself up to debate (which is healthy).

You do make good points.

For me, it comes down to this:

I do think the earth is warming.

We can’t prove the cause. But if we don’t figure it out soon and react (assuming it is man made), then we are only going to propel the problem.

Let me add one more thing – I know a lot of microbiologists and molecular biologists. And frankly, these subjects don’t qualify me at all to have an opinion on global warming.

I just discovered your blog and will poke around a bit (for the record, I do respect the great thought you put into your writing), and I’m curious as to what you think about topics like evolution, and oil insofar as empowering Arab nations).

I’ll check out some of your other posts now and thanks for your responses.

While I do have an advanced degree in science, I wasn’t calling into question the credibility of the aforementioned scientists.

Um, serendipity, do I need to remind you of what you’ve said?…

I like how the screenshot you have shows someone with a BA in math signing it.

That speaks volumes to the credibility of the petition.

9,000 scientists. Right.

And this…

What data is there on the scientists that signed this? How did they verify the claims of each signer?

I don’t think you can just say, “Look, we had 32,000 ’scientists’ sign this” in order to try to trump the scientists whose credentials were verified if you are claiming the number “far exceeds” the UN numbers.

Prove to us the validity of their credentials, otherwise this data really just looks politically driven.

You were very obviously trying to discredit the report from the start. So, please, let’s have none of this nonsense about you not calling their credibility into question.

And no, I’m sorry, I don’t agree. I don’t believe the Earth is warming anymore, because it is clearly, demonstrably not warming. According to the foremost authorities on global temperature, the average temperature of Earth has not increased since 1998, and last year was the coldest year on record since approximately 1900.

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

Furthermore, I do not believe man’s carbon emissions have diddly to do with the Earth’s climate. The great secret of so-called “global warming” is that CO2 is what is known as a trace gas and comprises less than five ten-thousandths of the atmosphere, while water-vapor comprises something around 98% of all “greenhouse” gasses. Yet the computer models upon which all this hysteria is based don’t even take water vapor into account — which probably has something to do with the fact that the same computer models cannot even remotely accurately predict current climate conditions given known historical data.

Moreover, as the 32,000 scientific signers of the petition agree…

“The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would HARM the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

So, no, I can’t say I agree with you at all, but we very much appreciate the compliments, and I hope we can present you with enough information that you will change your mind.

“I do think the earth is warming. We can’t prove the cause. But if we don’t figure it out soon and react (assuming it is man made), then we are only going to propel the problem.”

I disagree. I think the cause of global warming is pretty obvious. Plot arctic temperatures over the last 150 years against carbon emissions and you will see no correlation whatsoever. Especially in the last ten years as carbon emissions and shot up and temperature has actually declined slightly. Correlation does not prove causation, but lack of correlation does prove lack of causation.

Arctic temperatures and solar activity, by contrast, over this same time period correlate almost precisely. A reasonable person might look at that and think that maybe it’s the sun causing the temperature to go up and down. I know there’s a problem with scientists trying to figure out how the sun can have such a big impact, but they can work away on that problem until they figure it out. Obviously, it seems the sun is having the impact, as otherwise that correlation would be very hard to explain. Or maybe it’s aliens or rap music or something else causing it. But we know conclusively that it is not mankind’s emissions of carbon dioxide causing it because there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever with carbon dioxide. (Except, of course, the well-known phenomenon of outgassing, where over hundreds of years, a warming earth will release more CO2 from the oceans, and vice-versa. But that’s warming causing the CO2, not CO2 not causing the warming.)

Bottom line: There’s plenty we don’t know (like how to get quick service at a Denny’s restaurant), but the jury is in on whether CO2 is significantly influencing Earth’s climate. No correlation, no causation.

Well said vdisk! I’ve been thinking about printing up t-shirts and bumper-stickers that read, “It’s the Sun, Stupid!” But then again, it would probably get my car keyed and me involved in unpleasant altercations with hostile true-believers.

A petition of scientists means nothing. Dyson is brilliant, but he is a physicist. He doesn’t specialize in climate change. Signatures (even from Dyson) aren’t important. What is important are publications, research, possibly even data. The references given in this petition are mostly reviews of other scientists’ research, rather than studies of data that the scientists conducted themselves. Hell, the first source cited is from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. They are scientists, true. Probably damn smart too. But I don’t want my doctor selling me insurance or talking to me about climate change, I want him prescribing medicine.

“A petition of 32,000 scientists means nothing?” If you follow the links, you will see that the 32,000 are people with adequate scientific background to understand the subject. 9,000 are PhDs. Al Gore supposedly had one course in general science. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political organization from the organization that brought you “Oil for Food”, peacekeepers who rape small children, and a lengthy history of bribery and corruption.

The UN has 800+ contributing authors, many of whom have signed the petition. This petition is the 3rd of several petitions that concerned scientists have used to attempt to reach the public with the facts about climate change. Did you see a big headline on your newspaper’s front page about 32,000 scientists’ statement?

Somewhere, common-sense should kick in. The excitement is over 70% of one degree C. that the earth has warmed over the last 100 years. It stopped warming 10 years ago, and for the last 5 years has been cooling. Cooling enough to wipe out all of the warming.
The only source of alarm about the future comes from computer models– not observation — that have been proven to be so flawed that they cannot even correctly produce today’s temperature.

I know you don’t like reading or real scientists focused on Climate Change, but NASA tends to disagree with you that the earth has been cooling the past five years (These are observations, see below). The argument is not over whether or not the Earth is warming.. that is not a matter of opinion or debate. That is a fact. It is a debate over whether or not WE are causing it. At least know the argument before you open your mouth.

No one denies that the earth has warmed over the last century, about 70% of a degree. The earth is always warming or cooling. The argument is over whether or not the current warming or cooling is anything to get excited about. Certainly we have had some effect on climate since we have built cities (which have a heat-island effect) and tilled the land (to plant fields of wheat for example, which reflect more sunlight back into the atmosphere). The notion that our production of CO2 is causing warming is fallacious. CO2 has increased, but those increases follow increases in temperature so they cannot be the cause of warming. NASA has had it’s own problems with temperature, as the surface locations of thermometers have proved to be faulty which accounts for the variation between surface measurements and atmospheric measurement.

Actually Bill, It’s you that needs to learn what youre talking about before opening your mouth. If you knew what you were talking about you wouldnt have presented a graph on surface temperature claiming it represents global temperature. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that they are not the same thing. The fact is that you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, you don’t understand what the data you look at means, and you obviously have no interest in getting at the truth.

The four most reputable authorities on global temperature, the Uk’s Hadley Climate Research Unit, University of Alabama Huntsville, Remote Sensing Systems and NASA’s Godard Institute all agree that the global temperature has remained statistically unchanged over the last 10 years, and if anything, has gone down slightly, and they all agree that the last year has seen the biggest DECREASE in global temperature since at least 1800.

So, no, the globe is not currently warming. It hasn’t been warming for 10 years, if anything, its been cooling, and the last year saw between a 0.65 and 0.75 degree Celcius decrease.

Hadley isn’t saying that there is cooling, If you read their reports, they still support warming. NONE of those 4 places have agreed on that. In fact. The 8 warmest years that Hadley (and NASA) have recorded go in this order:

LOL, yes it is cooler because it was hotter. Brilliant analysis. You see, that is the way cooling works.

Your statement that “the trend is clearly still positive” belies your inobjectivity. You see, 2009, 2010, etc, have not happened yet. They are the future. We don’t know what the temperature will be. By claiming that the trend is still positive, even though the temperature has decreased, you are claiming to know the future.

That’s where you lose the debate. Thats where you lose credibility. You are looking for the outcome you want, not looking at the facts as they are.

Now I suggest you go back to school and take a refresher on the scientific method.

I am just saying that 1998 was off the trend, an outlier that has been explained by El Nino. It was ONE YEAR, all the other years follow the trend. You are just saying it is cooler since 1998. It is warmer since 1997 or 1999. Nothing in the real world follows an absolutely perfect curve.

Again, you are assuming that it was an outlier. You are assuming it is going to continue getting warmer. An assumption not supported by recent history. You are assuming you know the future. You don’t. The fact is it has cooled since 1998. You cannot both claim that we need to be worried because 1998 was the hottest year on record, while also claiming we should pay no attention to the fact that it is cooled since then because its an outlier. You have no interest in what the facts are, you are only interested in supporting the conclusion you have already drawn. There is nothing even remotely scientific about your position.

Hey guys, good argument. But neither of you has mentioned the key: Climate Sensitivity. The IPCC argues for a sensitive climate and using those numbers CO2 is at fault. Those of us who are skeptical argue for a low sensitivity which makes CO2 just about meaningless. Roy Spencer did a good paper on this and there is a simplified version for those of us that are not climatologists posted on the web. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

Thanks, that was interesting. For what the climate is really sensitive to see:

Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an
Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity.
By Ka-Kit Tung and Charles D. Camp
Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle Washington, USA

If you want to look for a trend in a noisy record, try using a several year smoothing algorithm. Then you’ll see that in fact, the global trend is still warming.

And to counterbalance your 32000, I suggest you look at: The US National Academy of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and basically every major well-regarded scientific organization that has made a statement about anthropogenic influence on climate change.

Re: The Sun: Obviously, if the Sun were to increase or decrease intensity by 10%, this would dwarf any other climate forcing. But we can observe the sun, and its intensity hasn’t changed much for the last 50 years.

Re: CO2 and % of greenhouse gases: Actually, if you removed CO2 from the atmosphere, you’d see a drop of 10% in radiative forcing. If there were no other greenhouse gases except CO2, it would be 25% of the forcing. Water vapor is _not_ 98% of the forcing, and all climate models _do_ include water vapor.

Re: Correlation/Causation: Actually, the influence of CO2 on climate comes from basic physics, understood since 1896 (Svante Arrhenius, “On the influence of carbonic acid…”, and Tyndall). No correlation studies needed.

Science is not determined by consensus, and “consensus” is not science. Science depends not on the National Academy of Science, but on who is right, and that may be one lonely scientist working all by himself.

The UN’s IPCC was set up to prove that global warming is caused by humans. Scientists that are paid to find something, will find it. The Academy of Science, Geophysical Union, etc.depend on the IPCC assessments. The work of the IPCC is generated by computer models which have been proven to be deeply flawed. They have been tested by asking them to calculate the known climate of today, rather than projecting into the future. They failed.

They have been unable to demonstrate what observation proves to be true. Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick” graph has been shown to produce the same effect no matter what the inputs. The terrestrial thermometer records are so influenced by unfortunate placement of stations that they are useless.

Among others, the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, and Christopher Monckton have proved the failure of the computer models.

CO2 levels now at 385 ppm by volume are in a geologic sense at their lowest in 600 million years. The climate is always changing. The Medieval Warm Period (900 – 1300) was much warmer than today (without benefit of SUVs) and the finest temperature known to man, when Vikings farmed in Greenland and wine grapes grew in England. The Little Ice Age (1300 – 1850) was responsible for the Killing Time in Scotland, reduced harvests, parties on 3’ thick ice on the Thames, extensive hunger,and a lot of witch burning–for witches were blamed for bad harvests.

CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that makes plants grow and resist drought.(This is a good thing) It’s what we breathe out. Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere follow increases in temperature, and therefore cannot be a cause of warming. If you study up on the science, you will find that global warming is far more about politics than science.

The bottom line is that people who don’t “believe” in global warming will never believe in it because they don’t trust this thing called science. There is no sense wasting your time with these people. It is the same as people who don’t “believe” in evolution… I mean gosh they are only THEORIES (like gravity). It makes me laugh when people try to argue you can have an opinion about a fact. I mean you do have a right to be wrong, but don’t be so vocal about it.

Did you read my response? I believe that the climate is always warming and cooling, as it has done for centuries. I believe firmly in facts as proved by observation.

I really didn’t offer the fact that CO2 is colorless and odorless as proof of anything except that it is colorless and odorless. You need to learn to read a little more closely, and learn a little more about the arguments before you start spouting off. Read the work of Christopher Monckton which is readily available on the web. He is expert on computer climate modelling.

“Belief” is something that belongs to religion, and unfortunately, for many, “global warming” has become a religion. Science is conducted with a healthy skepticism. That’s why peer-reviewed papers matter, and observation matters, and reproducible results matter.

As a geologist, I can say that the earth has been much warmer AND much cooler than any mankind has ever experienced (that much is certain). The geological record seems to argue against the idea of man-caused climate change.

I don’t think we have any more capability to destroy life on this planet than we have the ability to create a life-sustaining planet…I’m just sayin’

[…] steal” (Exodus 20:15), relating it to the ‘cap and trade’ bill, which will effectively, and under false pretenses, redistribute (read: steal) the incomes of Americans, convert them to ‘carbon credits’, and […]

Scientific method involves frmulating theories or hypotheses to explain events.predictions are made based on this theory and then checked against the facts.If something happens that should not have,and vice versa,the theory is discarded.In recent decades, CO2 emissions increased during several years of global cooling.End of story,game over,back to square one.The anthropogenic global warming theory has been discredited.

It is beyond laughable that you come here trying to discredit Freemon Dyson, perhaps THE pre-eminent physicist of our time, because he only has a BA (and 32,000 other scientists) and attempt to do so by posting a smear job by an amateur YouTube videographer who has NO degree or training in science of ANY kind.

Whats more, your smears, and his video are flat out lies. The qualifications of the signers are impeccable:

Contrary to your claim, 3,804 of the scientists expertise is in the atmospheric, environmental and earth sciences.

ALL the scientists are formally trained and qualified to understand and evaluate the methods of global warmists, which have already been exposed as fraudulent.

Indeed, it is precisely because the science does not pan out that you and the scientists behind global warming scare-mongering have resorted to trying to smear scientists who challenge your discredited claims.

I am disturbed by the way Republicans use the word “socialism” to describe virtually anything they oppose. The result is that a Americans are given the impression that we either can practice unregulated capitalism or we are practicing socialism, and there is no middle ground. That is a false dichotomy.

Your petition is simply insane. Even if global warming is not caused by humans, to say that decreasing carbon emissions would be harmful to the environment is a lie. Try breathing in your garage with your automobile running for half an hour and see how you feel.

You are responding to a post that is two years old. When your car runs in the garage, it is emitting carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide— which is what is claimed to be the “cause” of global warming. Unfortunately for those claims, increases of CO2 in the atmosphere follow increases in temperature by as much as a hundred years. CO2, if you recall your high-school biology is what you exhale, and is a colorless, benign, odorless gas that is a natural fertilizer for plants. The CO2 in the atmosphere mostly arises from the oceans.

You might want to look up the “global warming” on Pluto, Mars and the other planets. Probably isn’t from SUVs.

Republicans mostly use the word “socialism” to describe increases in big government control, attempts to socialize medicine, and other things that are, well, socialistic. Capitalism, in case you haven’t noticed, is definitely not “unregulated,” but pretty heavily regulated. The Financial Crisis, caused by the housing bubble, was a direct result of government regulation that forced banks to make loans that they wouldn’t have made under prudent banking practice to unqualified borrowers.

The 32,000 is an accurate number. Only 9,000 are PhDs, as is clearly stated. All have the credentials to understand the science involved. Credentials were checked. This is a post from 2008. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for information of anything to do with global warming. They had a long history of altering or deleting corrections from prominent scientists, and the person in charge was eventually removed from that post.
You are correct that the problems with governmental interference in the normal prudent home loan standards began in the Carter administration, and encouraging home ownershiip was pushed by most administrations. Banks were pressured to make loans that did not meet prudent banking standards — heavily pressured. The extent of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac corruption has not been exposed, and the Obama administration is pushing banks to loan to unqualified buyers again according to the news.

Ph.D.s or not, most scientists–including Freeman Dyson–are not fully qualified to judge either the evidence, the methods or the results of global warming research.

I don’t see any conservatives getting climate science degrees to check out whether the science is accurate or not. Some such scientists actually work as shills for conservative institutes (Patrick Michaels for the Cato Institue, for one). Many conservatives parrot the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, do not check or verify qualifications of global warming dissenters, can’t understand the scientific method and/or tend to be believers in self-appointed authority figures with no background in science–for example, the supposed 32,00 “scientists.”

32,000 no-nothings or no-too-little-to-be-qualified judges amount to ZIP. The document is a 32,000-strong pile of bunk. (There were a lot of Nazis too. Is 32,000 of them enough to make them look good? Just because there are a lot of idiots, killers and fanatics who agree on a few principle does not make them more credible.)

Those who believe the literal words of the Bible or the Quran are the worst offenders–they literally cannot think for themselves or weigh evidence objectively if it does not fit their rigid, predefined ideals.

That world-view is sadly crazy. It explains the Spanish Inquisition, Islamist jihad, creationism, the Salem Witch Trials and other travesties committed in the name of God or religion, or any other -ism. It also explains flat-eartherism, a close cousin of global warming denialism.

@The Elephant’s Child:

Authoritative websites (because they actually use verifiable science) that post only analyses from substantiated evidence include RealClimate.org and SkepticalScience.com. Just because the website you posted contains debate from both sides does not make both sides equally valid. The proof is in the quality of evidence and analyses of that evidence. leading to cogent theories, the yardsticks by which valid science is measured.

The work of Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, and Christopher Monckton and many others has all been debunked at RealClimate.org. Your so-called science is wrong, and you are rehashing debunked myths and distractions from real evidence.

Contrary to the claim by some scientists about models being inaccurate, “models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.” Read why at http://www.skepticalscience.com.

Also, there never was any argument by scientists that “consensus” determined the science. This a conservative’s misunderstanding of the meaning of “scientific consensus.” Or it may be a point deliberately employed to confuse and mislead those who don’t understand “scientific consensus.”

A scientific consensus describes a mass of qualified scientists who happen to agree on certain points. This is not the sense of consensus that conservatives mean, which is that a group of people got together to compromise their views into a “standard” viewpoint. The point you’re missing is that so damn many qualified scientists agree on the major points–only because the points make sense scientifically–that it has become a “consensus.”

Scientific theories and even facts can be disproved at any time by real, robust evidence and testing. That is the strength of science. Let any climate scientist do so, and have it tested by other climate scientists to disprove AGW. Fact: It hasn’t been done.

Nuff said. Habeus corpus, or “produce the body.” There is no “body” of evidence against human-caused global warming, only the repetition of debunked studies via the say-so of the not-well-qualified. Which, par for the course, is what many conservatives are used to misplacing their trust in.

You are commenting on a 3-year old post, by the way. There are undoubtedly way more than 32,000 now. All listed signers, as you would have learned if you read further and folowed links, were qualified to understand the science. And over 9,000 had PhDs. Unfortunately almost everything you have to say here is inaccurate or false. There is no such thing as “consensus” in Science — everything is always open to question and revision. You are apparently unaware of ClimateGate — see the book by AW Montford. The IPCC models have never been able to predict the temperatures of today, let alone 50 years hence. Check with the IPCC website, they admit that they do not do science. Patrick Michaels does not “shill” for the Cato Institute. Cato is a highly respected Libertarian think tank, and he is a scholar there. Steve McIntyre and Ross MeKittrick are not debunkable by the likes of Real Climate—they didn’t just say that the Michael Mann’s hockey-stick graph was wrong, they proved it conclusively. You could enter any old numbers and get a hockey stick graph.
Climate skeptics do not believe that global warming does not exist— the planet has been warming slightly ever since the Little Ice Age. They simply are skeptical that it is a matter of alarm, or that there is anything we can do about it. RealClimate is not an authoratative website, and I’ve never heard of Skeptical Science. You need to study up a bit.